Sunday, June 19, 2011

Right Wing Gun Violence Promoters - Boortz, Beck

Ed Schultz said he is worried about right-wing rhetoric after playing a clip of a talk show host calling for the streets of Atlanta to be "littered" with "dead thugs."
Speaking on his Wednesday show, Schultz challenged conservative talk show host Neal Boortz to appear on his MSNBC show and defend controversial comments he made about Atlanta on Monday:

BOORTZ: We got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta.

"There's something very ugly and dangerous going on in this country," Schultz said. "Right wing talk show hosts seem to be amping up racist and reckless rhetoric like never before ... the level of racist and violent rhetoric on hard-right wing radio today is off the charts."
He said that, in his opinion, Boortz "just advocated murder in the streets of Atlanta," and guessed that "Neal wasn't thinking of white thugs." Schultz also called Boortz "reckless, stupid and a racist."
He then challenged Boortz to "come on this program tomorrow night, and can you bring pictures? Can you show me who these thugs are? ... You're advocating damn near civil war."
Schultz also accused Glenn Beck of promoting violence for saying earlier this week, "Why would you get a gun? To prepare for tough times, that's why," while pointing at a picture of President Obama.

dog gone said...Actually gentleman, I think EVERYTHING Boortz said was inappropriate. He encouraged people to take matters into their own hands rather than for crime to be addressed by law enforcement and the courts. He is advocating for gun toting right wingers to be cops, judge, jury and executioners.

That is wrong in every way.

There is an excellent video clip which I did not have available when I posted this (also from the Ed Schultz show) which addressed the link between what Boortz said and the targeting by his language of blacks rather than others.

It addressed for example the prominent efforts of the Tupac Amaru Shakur Foundation to fight crime, and stereotypes of blacks as gangster, thugs, and crimnals in Atlanta where the Boortz show took place.

I would posit to you FWM, that anyone who uses the phrase 'race card' is inherently denying that racsim exists in this country, and not objectively evaluating how different groups of people are treated AS groups rather than individuals, or adequately reconizing that we are not all treated equally. Sometimes that racism is subtle, sometimes it is more blatant, but it exists. You can try to deny it, but that doesn't make it go away by wishing it away or by trying to ridicule it.

Racist conservatives - not all of them, but many.

Here are a few more examples of that, part of a larger pattern of right wing media wrongly smearing blacks as crooks, liars, and perpetrators of crminal fraud and deception to steal money from the rest of us:

"I would posit to you FWM, that anyone who uses the phrase 'race card' is inherently denying that racsim exists in this country, and not objectively evaluating how different groups of people are treated AS groups rather than individuals, or adequately reconizing that we are not all treated equally. Sometimes that racism is subtle, sometimes it is more blatant, but it exists. You can try to deny it, but that doesn't make it go away by wishing it away or by trying to ridicule it."

The full clip from Ed Schultz includes an excellent analysis by a college professor of language specific to the Atlanta area in terms of local usage.

To fairly claim that is the intent of Boortz, to use dog whistle political 'code', you really need to take a fair and objective look at his other statements on crime and race. That context is what makes the claim by Schultz of racism legitimtate.The same claim of larger context can be made in the case of Beck statements.

No FWM, you don't have much of a grasp of the content of Neal "Mighty Whitey" Boortz - his own nickname for himself.

The statements of Boortz are heinous. He promotes gun violence.

If you choose to deny racism when you hear it, that's your problem. His promotion of gun violence - and Beck's - of encouraging and inciting people to take guns, and to use them rather than letting the law do it's job, is offensive.

MikeB: “He said "Yo," in the mimicking, mocking, denigrating way that racists do.”

I think of Jessie Pinkman from Breaking Bad when I hear the word “Yo”.

I don’t follow this Boortz guy, so I am not here to defend him. My point is that when I hear the word “Yo” or “thug”, I do not automatically assign some ethnicity to it. There is a culture behind those terms, but every ethnicity shares a part of that.

A step above actual racists are people who use racism to push a political agenda by pointing their finger at every opportunity. It hurts race relations overall, and undermines the true struggle. There is too much of that going on.

FMW, TS, did you watch the embeded video all the way through? I thought that the professor was very clear and very erudite.

Let me add, in addition to the other racists commentary that is routine on Boortz shows, the following demographic data which is specific to Atlanta where Boortz does his show:

http://www.blackdemographics.com/

Atlanta is in the top 15 cities for black populations; it is THE single fastest growing urban black population.

If you look at urban crime and urban demographics, the preponderance of people that Boortz is describing as 'urban thugs' would clearly appear to be black people. Here is one study, but I looked at multiple demographics that indicate in Atlanta when Boortz is identifying people as "urban thugs", he is referfing to a largely black group of poor people, not just criminals generally across racial/ethnic or economic lines.

If you follow the opening by Ed Schultz it seems clear that Boortz is advocating for violence in response to a variety of crimes. In no way shape or form is it appropriate to kill someone for vandalism and graffiti tagging. I would even argue that car theft, a property crime, is not an appropriate occasion for killing a criminal unless your life is threatened in the process, because people's lives matter more than property, have a greater value than property. THAT is hateful.

You don't need a damn decoder ring FMW; you just need to look at the statistics of who it is that Boortz is calling a thug. You just need to realize the racial composition that is so vastly disproportionate in the number of individuals that Boortz is advocating be killed to understand that he is a racist.http://www.ejrc.cau.edu/sprawlweb.html

Boortz isn't advocating killing people who are in the process of actually committing a crime, he's advocating killing people he believes are ruining the quality of life for everybody.

Boortz has been offered the opportunity, repeatedly now, of clarifying that he didn't mean specifically blacks, if that was the case. He declined, repeatedly.Nor has he opted to clarify that I can find that he didn't mean specifically blacks anywhere on his own shows.

That suggests at the very least, if it doesn't prove it conclusively, that Boortz DID quite precisely mean poor urban Atlanta blacks when he used the words urban thugs, and not just criminals generally or violent criminals of all races and economic backgrounds.

Because I think it is a term that is batted around when someone doesn't like what someone has to say for any reason. It is being used so much that people are beginning not to take it serious and that is dangerous. There are some real racists out there but if you ask the left, anyone that is not a liberal is a racist.

As far as the original quote from this post:

"BOORTZ: We got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta."

Please tell me which part of that is racist? If it is such blatant racism, why can't anyone just answer the question?

Dog gone, no the professor did not convince me that what Boortz said was racist. Like I said, I am not defending the guy, I have never heard of him before, and all I have to go on is the 15 sec sound bit. My point is that I refuse to identify thuggery with any particular race, no matter what statistics for a particular region you show me. Therefore I refuse to accept the term “thug” as being racist. It is a behavior, not a race. That is the message I am trying to get across (being color blind). Ed on the other hand clearly thinks thugs are black people, and I find that disgusting.

I believe I did answer your question FWM, very thoroughly and factually.

Read it; watch the video all the way through.

Read it again. That is what subtle, covert rather than blatant but still very real racism looks like.

For example:

http://www.socialworkers.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/Racism.asp

"Racism is the ideology or practice through demonstrated power of perceived superiority of one group over others by reasons of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural heritage. Racism is manifested at the individual, group, and institutional level."

When Boortz is advocating the gun violence execution of urban thugs, and when that urban population is so very predominantly black, he is talking about black people. When he advocates killing 'urban thugs', a lawless violent act, which does not otherwise define who it is he is calling a thug, when he refuses repeatedly to clarify what he meant in the face of being challenged as to his meaning...... he means primraily poor black people.

If Boortz came out and said, more overtly, that he meant unambiguously and specifically black people, he'd have his very popular ass thrown off the air, as happened to our own political right wing nut pariah, Bradlee Dean, in Minnesota for his racist commentary on WWTC.

So he walks a tightrope line of what he can get away with saying, talking around his subject in a way which is very clear to anyone who follows his content, or is familiar with the demographic he is trying to target in his ugly and obscene way.

Dog Gone, I think our posts crossed in the comment queue as your post was not published when I asked for a clear example.

Anywho,

The way I read this Ed is the racist. Boortz referred to thugs and criminals and Shultz makes the leap that most criminals are blacks. So who is the racist?

I've never heard of this Boortz guy and I've never been to Atlanta (except for driving through at 75 mph on I-75 anyway) but when I read the quote I read it as he was talking about "criminals". I didn't think of them as black white red or brown--just CRIMINALS.

Boortz may be a racist--I have no idea--but labeling him as one because of this statement is just fear-mongering and spreading hatred by name calling by that Ed character.

If somebody made the statement that there is too much thuggery going on in Atlanta and police should ramp up quality of living arrests, would you call them racist? “Thug” is just not a racially tied word, like many ethnic slurs. I suppose you could make a case that it is racist against Indians being that it has origins dating back to street gangs in India that used to strangle their victims, but you are not calling him racist against Indians.

Dog gone: “If you deny this is racism, you would appear to be insensitive to the different ways in which blacks are treated and referred to in this country.”

Insensitive? At least you didn’t call me a racist for not calling other people racists. The point is I refuse to associate thug culture with black culture. Stop and think about the message behind being truly color blind.

TS and FWM, Unfortunately I have not escaped my childhood in North Jersey unscathed as far as racist thinking goes. I don't perpetuate it and I certainly don't justify it, but I do recognize it when it presents itself. The words, "urban thugs, yo," mean "black guys." If you don't hear them that way, you're better off than I am, except that you're left with a type of naivete which hinders basic communication.

Wow. It is so clear now. All conservative's are racists. Following the logic here:

Conservatives were against the bailouts.The government used the bailouts to bailout GM.GM owns Chevrolet.Chevrolet makes the Suburban.Suburban means sub-urban.Urban is code for black people.Therefore, if you are against the bailouts, then you are against black people.Conservatives are all racist. I understand your logic now.

So, if you say "I bought a Ford Expedition" you are really making a racist statement.

The linking of the words Urban Thug, when applied to overwhelmingly black poor urban areas has been found to be racially based repeatedly. It is not unique to MikeB or to me. It is a widely recpognized usage. If you think Boortz would risk an even more blatant word - like the N word - you're naive or deliberately trying to excuse what Boortz said.

Please, do by all means come up with a different but plausible description of urban thugs, because it is precisely the ambiguity of what an urban thug looks like to 'Mighty Whitey' (his nickname for himself) pro-segretationist speech writer Boortz that makes this objectionable.

Boortz meant black people. If he genuinely did not, he's had plenty of opportunity to clarify his meaning and has repeatedly refused to do so in response to those challenges.

Since I am all out of touch with racists and racist remarks, I decided to go to the Urban Dictionary online (which in racist speak is code for "black") and I looked up the word "thug".

Here is the definition of THUG from the BLACK Dictionary:"To be a true thug doesnt mean wearing "bling", listening to rap and talking "black". Being a gangsta isnt superficial.. To be a true thug means you havent had it good your whole life, and you intend to change that, and get out of the ghetto if thats where you are, you do whats right, you dont take shit from anyone, and stand up for your friends and dont let them take shit from anyone! You dont have to be a stereotypical "gangsta" to be a thug, a skater can be a thug, a nerd can be a thug, a hick can be a thug, a prep can be a thug, and old ass man can be a thug!"

See, even the Urban (code for BLACK) Dictionary doesn't classify a thug as an URBAN dweller (meaning black person in race code speak).

The urban dictionary is hardly an authoritive source FWM, but if you think it is, that says something about you that you might prefer not to claim...

But if you prefer Non authoritive sources, here's one for you - read the last sentence very carefully for the IMPLICIT meaning:

http://www.thugreport.com/about.phpWhy do you only show black criminals? If you are asking this, you just picked the wrong day to visit. We post stories and photos of urban crime perps, regardless of race. Plenty of white criminals have had the dishonor of appearing on the site. However, because blacks are far more likely to commit urban crime, they are also far more likely to appear here.

And by all means lets get back to the urban dictionary here, which appears to conclusively prove my point, FWM:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thug&defid=4243462

13. Thug 27 up, 12 down buy thug mugs, tshirts and magnetsOriginally a reference to a violent group/cult in India but etymologically anglicized to refer to a brutal criminal in general for most of the latter 19th and 20th century. The word was adopted/co-opted by the American Rap and Hip Hop music scene in the late 20th century generally defining a tough anti-hero with criminal involvement.

Recently the white conservative movement in the U.S.A. has adopted it as a substantive replacement for the vulgar and toxic term "nigger" which is no longer safe for use in most media channels.Livin' life thug style -- Tupac (To live and die in L.A. 1996).

"Obama is an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief'"(Mark Williams)"

And speaking of addressing the demographics, I came across this blog which I think addresses beyond any doubt what conservative racists understand Neal Boortz to be saying

Every time I hear a far right wing nut like Limbaugh, or Beck, blow their dog whistle with claims that black people hate white people (individually, or as a group) or some version of blacks, as a group, are trying to take money out of your pockets through welfare, or any of the many other variations, it raises the question of racism. Invariably, there has been a pattern with those who say these things, a racist pattern.

Even MikeB will tell you that my use of the Urban Dictionary was not serious.

What I am serious about though is how much the claims of racism are used day in and day out so much so that people are not going to take the claim serious and real racism will continue.

I honestly do not know anything about Boortz but it sounded to me like he was talking about criminals. If they are black criminals than so be it. If you believe he would not advocate the same treatment of the same criminals if they were white, then you can claim racism.

FWM wrote:"If you believe he would not advocate the same treatment of the same criminals if they were white, then you can claim racism."

That is precisely what I believe I have demonstrated here, and not just with Boortz. I believe that Boortz is claiming (and the others to whom his message is targeted) that Blacks are more frequently criminals than Whites are, and that the Poor are more frequently criminals than the less poor middle class and above.

And I believe he is therefore advocating shooting poor black people by accusing them of being 'urban thugs'. Not differentiating which people are actual criminals and which are not, just on the basis they are poor and urban and black, and therefore a threat to 'the quality of life'.

FWM, TS, I was not writing only for you. I'm glad you weren't using the urban dictionary seriously, but I did find it pretty funny that your own source, frivolous or not, contradicted you, if you looked further.

I can assure you that I don't cry wolf in claiming racism. What I would hope MikeB would tell you, and what my blogging partner for the past two years on Penigma WILL tell you, is that I do honest, thorough homework in researching statements that I make.

That goes for the entire spectrum of topics I write about, not just racsim.

You, FWM, express concerns that real racism will continue if - like the boy who cried wolf in the classic fable - people claim it to often.

I applaud your concern that we try to minimize racsim at least (eradicate at best).

I think before you, or TS, or anyone else dismisses a claim of racism too quickly, you should at least look at it more closely than a superficial scrutiny. I think you should give the person who claims racism the benefit of the doubt unless or until you find solid evidence to the contrary.

I hope this leads to better communication here going forward, particularly between us in future comments.

I don't mind doing the extra research, for people who are skeptical but willing to keep a fair and open mind. A post becomes only stronger when that happens, and a good give-and-take discussion results.

Have I persuaded you that these were in fact both racist comments AND calls for gun violence - largely or at least substantially, on the basis of race? And that the target audience appears to be a segment (not all) of the polticial and cultural right?

"Have I persuaded you that these were in fact both racist comments AND calls for gun violence - largely or at least substantially, on the basis of race?"

No you have not persuaded me. Yes, I agree that it is a call to violence but I do not believe it is based upon race. It is a call to violence against crime. If the criminal happens to be black or white does not matter.

BTW, the last "thug" to say "yo" to me was as white as my mother.

"And that the target audience appears to be a segment (not all) of the political and cultural right?"

Yes, I assume that is his target audience. Isn't he a talk radio host?

Dog gone: “I think you should give the person who claims racism the benefit of the doubt unless or until you find solid evidence to the contrary.”

See, I do the opposite. Racism is an accusation- a very serious one. I want to see solid evidence of racism and I will stand with you. All you have done is tell me that most Atlanta thugs are black. “Solid evidence to the contrary”? People need to prove to you they are NOT racist?

Dog gone: “Have I persuaded you that these were in fact both racist comments AND calls for gun violence - largely or at least substantially, on the basis of race?”

Not the racist part. Look at the line “at least substantially” that you just said. So there are white urban thugs too. What you need to do to convince me that he is racist is any indication that he would give the white urban thugs a pass for lowering his quality of life. I really doubt that this jerk would do that.

TS, this pretty much says it, excerpted from an earlier comment:"Recently the white conservative movement in the U.S.A. has adopted it as a substantive replacement for the vulgar and toxic term "nigger" which is no longer safe for use in most media channels."

If you check out the vilely racist web site I provided (here : http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/06/18/who-are-neal-boortz-atlantaurban-thugs/), from Georgia, look at both how the Boortz audience interprets his statement, and the 'about' section, to see the racism.

Beyond that, this is more widely viewed as euphemistic language to express racism in more scholarly academic circles, by academicians who are white, black and other ethnicities. That perception of racism inherent in this kind of language has been well documented in precisely the usage of more blatantly racist individuals like the one in the link I posted, as is the appeal of people like Boortz in targeting them as his audience. This is not an isolated instance; it is part of a widespread endemic pattern that equates the word thug with urban blacks as a group.

Your denial appears to be willful naievete, not reasonable.

You might be right that they would treat whites who associate with urban blacks with equal violence; but the overall group to whom they refer are categorically poor BLACK AMERICANS, occasionally other minorities, not affluent white americans.

You are giving Boortz a pass so long as he has the smarts to avoid actually using the word nigger. Short of the n word, you don't appear to be too critical of him.

I think what he said was far worse than just 'inappropriate' on all counts. He was calling for the planned, deliberate, lawless killing of people without investigation, arrest, trial, or sentencing.

Dog gone, I am not giving Boortz a pass. As you will note, I have repeatedly said I am not defending him. The only thing I have said is that I don’t find the statement in question to be racist- the reason being that I will not succumb to stereotyping criminals as being black. How is that naive? We should all strive for this.

I am afraid I was a little misleading when I said “I want to see solid evidence of racism and I will stand with you.” I was talking in general, not necessarily in regards to this Boortz character. You keep trying to make your case to me against him specifically, but I’d rather not spend much brain power on this guy. It seems to me like he is an attention whoring shock jock, and what he wants is to make “shocking one-liners” so people talk about him. That turns me off. I don’t think he intends to randomly kill thugs. If he does, we will see him arrested soon enough. The message of “get a gun, get trained, protect yourself” is just not shocking enough, and it is not going to rile up the media to his liking. You are kind of falling for it. If you think his rhetoric is dangerous, it is best to just ignore him rather than give him a bigger voice.